If Apple can just get the content providers onboard to allow a Netflix like subscription service for current TV content, with ala carte and season passes for stuff like HBO's content, I could can my satellite provider and use nothing but a cable modem and Apple TV. That would save me plenty of money and be disruptive for TV content middlemen.

At some point cable is just going to become a pipe to content. There just needs to be a way to pay the content providers. If Apple can provide a solution to that, then Apple TV can become disruptive and attractive in ways it is not currently.

TV networks like HBO and big media conglomerates which own TV and movie properties are not going to risk their current revenue streams. That is why HBO Go currently is only available if you subscribe through cable or satellite.

Congress has been talking about a la carte programming for years. Not sure how serious they've been though. They get complaints from constituents about cable practices, especially bundling of channels that you pay for, even though you don't want them. But lobbyists make sure Congress will do their bidding.

On top of that, Big Content is wary of Apple. They don't want to see Apple make billions from their content the way it did with music. That is why video selection on iTunes is limited compared to music. Apple would have to cut them in on a piece of hardware sales for them to venture away from their clients, which are the cable and satellite cos.

The way to disrupt cable and satellite is probably through building broadband networks, like Google has done on a very limited basis. That is where most of the cable company profits are, in broadband. Disrupt that business and the content business opens up. If the Comcasts of the world see their profits plunge because they get broadband competition, then the TV business is going to be impacted.

If the guts of the 5" iPhone happen to be the same as the 4S then ASP is also up since the 4S is expected to to sell for $450 this year.

In other words, 4S for $450, 5" for $500, 5 for $500, and 5S for $600 means there is a lot of upsell pressure since for '$50 more' you can get a larger (cheaper) 5" screen, or the faster iPhone 5.

So in this example the big iPhone would be a low end iPhone?

I use the word low-end loosely, but look at the iPad mini introduction where they used established lower cost parts instead of new parts.

Quote:

I figure they'd go with what they've been doing with everything else with screens, where bigger = better, which could create some interesting problems/options pricing wise.

Well, that's why it's an upsell from the otherwise spec identical 4S!

$450 4S$500 4XL$500 5$650 5S

I doubt they would keep the 4 around, but they may just to have an even lower entry price.

Heh, but then visually it's a downsell which I think is a bigger deal than any specs right now (particularly when they're largely good enough for most people right now). Like in that example the 4XL looks like a whole new model while the latest and greatest 5S...looks like the same as the 5 (going by previous "S") releases.

I was thinking more along the lines of the big one taking the current $650 or whatever price and the identically specced smaller one moving down, whether taking a hit on margins or saving on costs or a little of both:4": $5505": $650

And they can still upsell on storage from those price points. Then there's the taco lineup option:3-4" 8GB iPhone air lite mini taco $350 with the newer Apple TV's single core A5r3 (or ideally 22nm A6r2, also for Apple TV 4)4" iPhone $5005" iPhone plus XL burrito $650

CNBC had an analyst on, saying Apple just need to get new products out there, whether they're instant home runs or not, to show they are still innovating after SJ.

He has a $550 price target in the next 12 months.

Again, it's questionable whether just getting something out for the sake of getting something out will yield more profits.

I still don't get the watch thing or for that matter, the TV unless it's truly disruptive.

I guess things like Airport Express, BootCamp and podcasts did boost the stock in their day, even though none of these things materially improved the bottom line.

I think it's just a matter of buzz. The last few years they've had something every few months or every quarter it seems, like (calendar quarters) iPad Q1, some Macs Q2, then iPhone and iPod and whatever other Macs spread over Q3/Q4.

While a schedule like that sucks as far as predictability and not being flexible for the dev teams, it was good for keeping Apple constantly in the news cycle and consumer awareness. I'm fine with the inaction if it's to make sure the products are good rather than needlessly rushing them out. Then again the Q1 iPad releases were really convenient cause my birthday was right around them

As far as watches, I don't know either. I did get a FuelBand for my birthday, and it's kind of neat but I'm in a health kick right now. I had one instance of "hey I don't have to pull out my phone to check the time!" so I guess there's some appeal there...but I don't know how much considering the likely limited input options on a watch form factor (outside of Siri I guess, but I have various issues with the concept of voice for input). For myself I'd be happy with a new FuelBand with GPS, pulse monitoring, and lower power/brightness always on display option, plus wearability design tweaks...stuff that Apple could help on for all I know. Perhaps notification support and other fanciness, damn thing is already iOS only! (as far as mobile support goes)

TV networks like HBO and big media conglomerates which own TV and movie properties are not going to risk their current revenue streams.

++

I sound like a broken record on this, but the quick fix for an Apple television product is a CableCARD slot. Cable operators (and their fiber/satellite cousins) are required by the FCC to support compatible CableCARD devices, so this gives the Apple product instant access to all the programming that their target customers want, and neither the content providers nor the carriers can say "Boo."

Then buy TiVo and Tribune Media services, using the leftover change under Tim Cook's sofa cushions. This gives you all the programming information and a patent hammer to ward off vampires.

Put a UI on top of this that merges, organizes, and presents your iTunes library + DVR content + live cable content, and now my Mom and Dad can watch TV without calling me for help.

Apple might even create a trade-in program for TiVo boxes, which would quickly give them a larger installed base.

As viewers become habituated to the Apple television service over 3-5 years, Apple can guide/wean them away from live content, and eventually do away with the parallel port CableCARD slot, and 95% of their users won't even notice.

TV networks like HBO and big media conglomerates which own TV and movie properties are not going to risk their current revenue streams. That is why HBO Go currently is only available if you subscribe through cable or satellite....

Well, Netflix is already streaming a lot of content. Apple could at least match their offerings plus the existing ability to rent premium content.

..and the existence of Netflix current offerings means there is a price point where the content providers will deal.

TV networks like HBO and big media conglomerates which own TV and movie properties are not going to risk their current revenue streams.

++

I sound like a broken record on this, but the quick fix for an Apple television product is a CableCARD slot. Cable operators (and their fiber/satellite cousins) are required by the FCC to support compatible CableCARD devices, so this gives the Apple product instant access to all the programming that their target customers want, and neither the content providers nor the carriers can say "Boo."

Then buy TiVo and Tribune Media services, using the leftover change under Tim Cook's sofa cushions. This gives you all the programming information and a patent hammer to ward off vampires.

Put a UI on top of this that merges, organizes, and presents your iTunes library + DVR content + live cable content, and now my Mom and Dad can watch TV without calling me for help.

Apple might even create a trade-in program for TiVo boxes, which would quickly give them a larger installed base.

As viewers become habituated to the Apple television service over 3-5 years, Apple can guide/wean them away from live content, and eventually do away with the parallel port CableCARD slot, and 95% of their users won't even notice.

CableCARD can be a pain in the ass cause tuning adapters flaking out (unless they also made their own TA), or the provider support for them just sucking, or some other mystery issues that no one in tech support seems to have any experience with. And in my case, my provider has a list of supported CableCARD devices so it's not exactly a free for all space there either.

...but I wouldn't mind one with all the crap I've went through setting up MCE boxes, then again 90% of the crap has been due to the CableCARD<->provider stuff itself so I don't know if Apple making the hardware would've made a difference

Plus it'd seem like a lot of effort (with the testing and regulations stuff and still having to deal with providers) for something that'd essentially be a short term solution, and US only on top of that.

..and the existence of Netflix current offerings means there is a price point where the content providers will deal.

Only if they actually want to do business with Apple. As wco81 said, I think it's pretty obvious the networks/movie studios saw what happened to the music industry when it embraced iTunes so completely—they lost much of their precious distribution control. The networks have been more strategic with their deals, even leaving money on the table if it helps keep the landscape more bifurcated.

I sound like a broken record on this, but the quick fix for an Apple television product is a CableCARD slot. Cable operators (and their fiber/satellite cousins) are required by the FCC to support compatible CableCARD devices, so this gives the Apple product instant access to all the programming that their target customers want, and neither the content providers nor the carriers can say "Boo."

CableCARD is a US-only standard. Aren't they unlikely to do a US-only product?

Guys I am beginning to lose faith that aapl can bounce back, and I am a long term aapl holder.

Every investor has to come to terms with loving a stock too much, vs getting smoked out of a position by false market forces. Up until now I thought we we being smoked out by "the market" taking aapl down for another buying opportunity. The stock has not shown any sign of strength since the last earnings report. Maybe , just maybe, we should consider that aapl may not have an ithing up its' sleeve.

Sure they don't want to release anything before its time, or maybe there isn't anything to release. Dividend is now at 2.5% see they raised it- P/E now 8.8. Now beating on the door of the 200 week moving average. Monthly RSI at 40 (near historic low). Got to bounce here or really really really dead (original wiz of oz reference).

Rant on: Look at the Mac Pro. A perfectly good formerly profitable line that has been neglected. Sure the money has been in phones and pads but a company the size of aapl should be able to manage multiple lines, and maintain their profitability. Not only should there be a contemporary high end pro, but apple should have built a complete contained home server solution (not the mac mini) that interfaces with TV and all our digital media, a mini with thunderbolt storage in an affordable package. Could of should of.

CableCARD is a US-only standard. Aren't they unlikely to do a US-only product?

Yeah we had a whole thread (or at least a bunch of posts) on that a while back. Pretty sure I also posted something similar to what I posted above about it being sort of a pain in the ass on top of being US only.

For TV I figure they should open up the Apple TV to third party development and see what happens...that's kind of happening with AirPlay I guess but it's not really the same thing. If content providers have no interest they'll stay away from Apple like they're doing now, or if they want they can get on there themselves like they've been doing with the portable iOS devices.

Not only should there be a contemporary high end pro, but apple should have built a complete contained home server solution (not the mac mini) that interfaces with TV and all our digital media, a mini with thunderbolt storage in an affordable package. Could of should of.

How many people would buy that vs whatever computer they have plus $99 boxes that can just stream stuff? Or are you talking about something like a cheap iOS based server? Latter reminds me of some wacky AirPort Extreme/Time Capsule idea I had a while back, just have that thing act as your home server/personal cloud thing.

Guys I am beginning to lose faith that aapl can bounce back, and I am a long term aapl holder.

Then you should sell.

Quote:

Rant on: Look at the Mac Pro. A perfectly good formerly profitable line that has been neglected. Sure the money has been in phones and pads but a company the size of aapl should be able to manage multiple lines, and maintain their profitability. Not only should there be a contemporary high end pro, but apple should have built a complete contained home server solution (not the mac mini) that interfaces with TV and all our digital media, a mini with thunderbolt storage in an affordable package. Could of should of.

There will be a new Mac Pro this year, reportedly— or something to replace it, and the line will be discontinued. But that doesn't matter. Apple's long-term future has just about nothing to do with the Mac Pro. Correction, actually: it has nothing to do with the Mac Pro. If you think that's a significant factor wrt AAPL (not to mention Apple) you should get out of the analysis game.

Guys I am beginning to lose faith that aapl can bounce back, and I am a long term aapl holder.

If you can't stand it, cash out. The money should make you feel better. The issue then is whether you have a more attractive place to put your money; if you do, then why are you waiting?

Quote:

Every investor has to come to terms with loving a stock too much, vs getting smoked out of a position by false market forces. Up until now I thought we we being smoked out by "the market" taking aapl down for another buying opportunity. The stock has not shown any sign of strength since the last earnings report. Maybe , just maybe, we should consider that aapl may not have anything up its' sleeve.

Apple doesn't have to have anything up it's sleeve. This isn't a magic trick or a stage show. This is math and guts.

If no one wants to own Apple (like you, evidently, are evincing), there will be no 'sign of strength'. People will keep selling and the stock will keep dropping.

Quote:

Sure they don't want to release anything before its time, or maybe there isn't anything to release. Dividend is now at 2.5% see they raised it- P/E now 8.8. Now beating on the door of the 200 week moving average. Monthly RSI at 40 (near historic low). Got to bounce here or really really really dead (original wiz of oz reference).

It is possible that they will see an earnings collapse. That would justify the low stock price, PE, etc.

If that is what you think will happen then of course getting out makes sense. This time last year they earned $39b and had a profit of $11b, a gross income of $18b. The year before it was $24b/$6b/$9.8b, with Apple believing they will accomplish $43b and $16b gross income if you assume gross margin of 38.5%

It's definitely not a collapse of the stock, but at the same time probably does mean the rollercoaster ride is over.

Quote:

Rant on: Look at the Mac Pro. A perfectly good formerly profitable line that has been neglected. Sure the money has been in phones and pads but a company the size of aapl should be able to manage multiple lines, and maintain their profitability. Not only should there be a contemporary high end pro, but apple should have built a complete contained home server solution (not the mac mini) that interfaces with TV and all our digital media, a mini with thunderbolt storage in an affordable package. Could of should of.

The Mac Pro is a red herring, a wild goose, and irrelevant.

The cost invested in developing it, arguably, dilutes their profits given their negligble revenue/income from it. All their Macs barely account for 10% of their revenue as reported Q1Y13, the Mac Pro not even half of their units given the popularity of their laptops. As last reported in Q4Y12 Mac desktops were 3.3% of the revenue, out of Macs being 18% of the revenue.

You can argue that a rejuvenated Mac Pro will of course boost unit sales and revenue, but I'm saing that it's negligble.

The rest of your rant is also a bad move, I believe.

Bad because it is useless, a solution in search of a problem.

If Apple wants to 'move the needle', boost revenue, profits, and goose the stock, they need to make more mass market products at high prices.

A larger screened phone where the cost of the screen is lower due to it's size, where the cost of the battery drops because it need not be as big, where the chassis is simpler to manufacture, assemble, and replace, etc.

If Apple wants to 'move the needle', boost revenue, profits, and goose the stock, they need to make more mass market products at high prices.

A larger screened phone where the cost of the screen is lower due to it's size, where the cost of the battery drops because it need not be as big, where the chassis is simpler to manufacture, assemble, and replace, etc.

Which is why i don't think the cheaper phone for emerging markets can do it, not by lowering margins even further like the iPad mini did.

And the Apple TV at the usual margins is going to be pretty expensive, it has to be better than everything else or they have to bet on it by buying a lot of panels and thus lowering costs, and if it flops...

If they do lower margins they better sell a ton more and i do wonder if there's room for it.

If Apple wants to 'move the needle', boost revenue, profits, and goose the stock, they need to make more mass market products at high prices.

A larger screened phone where the cost of the screen is lower due to it's size, where the cost of the battery drops because it need not be as big, where the chassis is simpler to manufacture, assemble, and replace, etc.

Which is why i don't think the cheaper phone for emerging markets can do it, not by lowering margins even further like the iPad mini did.

I don't think the comparison is valid.

The iPad and iPad mini are both 'low margin' product.

The iPhone is a high margin product.

Apple makes more for every iPhone 5 sold (about $400 to $450) than the MSRP for the full sized iPad. They make more for every iPhone 4 sold (about $250 to $300) than the MSRP for the introductory iPod touch.

Lowering the manufacturing cost for an iPhone AND lowering the cost for the iPhone maintains the really high margin and improves sales.

Quote:

And the Apple TV at the usual margins is going to be pretty expensive, it has to be better than everything else or they have to bet on it by buying a lot of panels and thus lowering costs, and if it flops...

If they do lower margins they better sell a ton more and i do wonder if there's room for it.

I never said they would lower margins, I said they should make a cheaper iPhone.

Guys I am beginning to lose faith that aapl can bounce back, and I am a long term aapl holder.

You know, at today's closing price, AAPL's P/E is lower than that of DELL (not even factoring out the $150B cash hoard). Apple is the biggest, most profitable player in two of the most important tech sectors today - smartphones and tablets. It dominates them in just about every measurable metric. And these segments are growing like gang-busters. Compare that to Dell, whose main business is selling to a dying (okay, rapidly shrinking) market segment and utterly reliant on Microsoft, which does not have a revolutionary software solution arriving in the near term (Windows 8 is it for through 2014 at least).

Now, what does that tell you about Mr. Market? Is the market rational?

If Apple wants to 'move the needle', boost revenue, profits, and goose the stock, they need to make more mass market products at high prices.

A larger screened phone where the cost of the screen is lower due to it's size, where the cost of the battery drops because it need not be as big, where the chassis is simpler to manufacture, assemble, and replace, etc.

Which is why i don't think the cheaper phone for emerging markets can do it, not by lowering margins even further like the iPad mini did.

I don't think the comparison is valid.

The iPad and iPad mini are both 'low margin' product.

The iPhone is a high margin product.

Apple makes more for every iPhone 5 sold (about $400 to $450) than the MSRP for the full sized iPad. They make more for every iPhone 4 sold (about $250 to $300) than the MSRP for the introductory iPod touch.

Lowering the manufacturing cost for an iPhone AND lowering the cost for the iPhone maintains the really high margin and improves sales.

Quote:

And the Apple TV at the usual margins is going to be pretty expensive, it has to be better than everything else or they have to bet on it by buying a lot of panels and thus lowering costs, and if it flops...

If they do lower margins they better sell a ton more and i do wonder if there's room for it.

I never said they would lower margins, I said they should make a cheaper iPhone.

I don't see how they can make a cheaper phone that people would actually want to buy without lowering margins quite a bit.

Going to plastic back and worse cpu/gpu will save you perhaps 50-80$ why would you buy such a phone over an iPhone 5 or 5S? especially when it's compared without contracts.

The iPhone 5 costs 275$ in a 24 month contract down here, and goes for 812$ locked and 1000$ unlocked without contract. why would i buy a 712$ plastic iPhone?

Take the three most expensive components and make them cost less:Display ($44 or so for the iPhone 5) would become cheaper by using a lower DPI screen. Instead of 336 dpi go to 264 (so not a huge drop in quality) and you get a 5" screen.Drop LTE ($34 or so for the iPhone 5) and go back to standard 3G.Simplify the case ($33 or so for the iPhone) and go with an injection molded plastic.

So instead of a phone that costs over $200 to make you can get a phone that costs less than $170 or so to make.

So you still get a cheaper phone (iPhone 4S) and a higher margin phone (iPhone 4SX costs $20 more to make but nets an extra $50), along with the iPhone 5X and 5SX, assuming the 5X is plastic and the 5SX is metal.

I think it's incredibly foolish to think Apple isn't capable of innovative new products... and has completely lost the ability to disrupt new markets.

Sad thing is that market never had such expectations for other companies in tech - ... Microsoft, ... Just Apple.

Yes they have. It's one of the reasons that MS stock stayed flat YoY despite continued growth that regularly beat expectations. MS simply wasn't blowing people away, and so their stock stayed stagnant despite actual measurable growth that outpaced most of the industry.

Briefly changing the topic to earnings... Last quarter Apple said that it would now give realistic forecasts, but would not actually forecast earnings. For this quarter, Apple forecast $42B±$1B in revenue and margins of 38%±0.5%. Margins are forecast to be nearly flat compared with last quarter (38.6%). I don't understand this forecast, given the absence of new products this quarter, and virtually all new products last quarter. Some of this could be accounted for because fixed costs are divided over larger revenues in Q1, but history suggests that margins go up as Apple products mature; Apple never says this, of course. However, you generally learn something assembling the first 80,000,000 iPhones that's applicable to assembling the next 1,000,000, and last year's expensive new components are this year's standard components (and they're not being produced at breakneck speeds in time for Christmas). From this argument, I would think that Apple would beat its margin estimate, but I also don't think that Apple would introduce a new, supposedly more accurate forecast and then get it wrong in its first implementation ("AAPL forecasting is an alpha release," reports Peter Oppenheimer.)

CableCARD is a US-only standard. Aren't they unlikely to do a US-only product?

They did CDMA, but that may have required money up front from Verizon to make it happen.

I thought there was a new non-card system coming out, that would allow TVs to do all the two way communication required for pay per view, encrypted channels and the like. Forgot what it was called, but if Apple does a TV tuner it is likely to use the new standard and not CableCard.

Margin might be flat because the lower margin products are more popular (iPad mini, iPhone 4S).

I guess, but I'd think that the iPhone 4S probably has a very high margin. The 4S and the 4 are assembled using well understood processes from older, cheaper components.

They lowered the price by 100$, they couldn't have lowered the cost by more than 20$, that's why it has lower margin.

The iPhone 4S is a computer with a 2.5-year-old design and 1.5-year-old hardware. Its original price was $650, and its margin was around 35% (I imagine), giving Apple's cost as $420. You're saying that Apple managed to reduce its costs by slightly less than 5%. If that's true, then AAPL fully deserves its current P/E of 6.

The 4S costs less than $200. It's raw parts are approximately $180. It's on sale for $550, giving Apple about $370 per sale, about 67% margin, while the 4 probably only had 62% margin.

I believe that you're using iSuppli's unverified numbers from 2011. I would assume that the parts costs have come down considerably. Assembly costs are likely lower than they were in 2011 as well, but I don't know what those are.

Even so the raw assembly/parts cost is dramatically lower than your proposed $420.

You know that the basic motherboard+flash+RF+antenna+SoC cost cannot be higher than the AppleTV $85 refurbished price (else Apple would be taking a loss on them). Assuming a 30% margin new and you get that the heart of the iPhone only costs $70.

Then throw in the battery (which you can buy similar ones online for less than $10), screen, and camera, and additional sensors for another $100 and you get a reasonable $170 cost for the iPhone 4, possibly iPhone 4S.

The 4S costs less than $200. It's raw parts are approximately $180. It's on sale for $550, giving Apple about $370 per sale, about 67% margin, while the 4 probably only had 62% margin.

I believe that you're using iSuppli's unverified numbers from 2011. I would assume that the parts costs have come down considerably. Assembly costs are likely lower than they were in 2011 as well, but I don't know what those are.

You might assume wrong.

Samsung actually raised prices on some components not long ago.

You still need the same wafer to produce the same components, you haven't changed design nor is there a process shrink. i've only heard of one in the apple tv SoC going for a true single core cpu.

So you could buy more components to get a better price, but i'm not so sure any supplier could do that due to apple's volume unless apple signed a longer term contract to actually expand capacity which would be costlier initially, or they could refuse to do, they do operate on very thin margins unlike apple.

Assembly costs could be lower but no way to know, there's a high turnover rate on employees at foxconn so it could very well be static.

Another thing to consider is how long in advance does apple buy components, they are locked in at that price until they renew those contracts.

CableCARD is a US-only standard. Aren't they unlikely to do a US-only product?

They did CDMA, but that may have required money up front from Verizon to make it happen.

I thought there was a new non-card system coming out, that would allow TVs to do all the two way communication required for pay per view, encrypted channels and the like. Forgot what it was called, but if Apple does a TV tuner it is likely to use the new standard and not CableCard.

The new one is called AllVid, but it's still at the proposal stage. Apple can't launch a TV platform using a standard that hasn't been adopted yet by the carriers; there would be no content.

But AllVid will (allegedly) use Ethernet for its physical interface, so the product could use CableCARD and be updateable to support unicorns AllVid if/when it ever gets ratified and widely adopted.

Regarding the US-onlyness of CableCARD, that's true, but the US is far and away the most lucrative television market, and if Apple can get critical mass here, that mass will give it tremendous leverage as tries to dictate its solution in other markets.

Even so the raw assembly/parts cost is dramatically lower than your proposed $420.

You know that the basic motherboard+flash+RF+antenna+SoC cost cannot be higher than the AppleTV $85 refurbished price (else Apple would be taking a loss on them). Assuming a 30% margin new and you get that the heart of the iPhone only costs $70.

Then throw in the battery (which you can buy similar ones online for less than $10), screen, and camera, and additional sensors for another $100 and you get a reasonable $170 cost for the iPhone 4, possibly iPhone 4S.

First, I'm not sure what you're arguing for. I understood your response post to say that low margin products like the 4S would reduce Apple's margins. I think that the 4S is a high-margin product, as I wrote in my subsequent posts.

Second, Apple's margin isn't Price-Assembly-Parts; it's Price-Assembly-Parts-Shipping-Marketing-TimCook'sSalary-EveryOtherCostOfBusiness. The margin has to be in the 30 - 45% range, likely on the lower side when the product is new. Hence, the $420 is an estimate of all those costs. In any case, I expect the Parts and Assembly costs to have gone down quite a bit since its introduction.

As someone who had a CableCard Tivo for years, I don't think Apple will get involved with that particular technology. It's true the cable companies are mandated by the FCC to support it, but they make it an extremely unpleasant experience. From customer service agents who either don't know what it is or who groan and sigh when dealing with CableCard issues, no self-install options, service techs who know less than I do about how CableCard works, flakey tuning adapters... the entire thing is about as un-Apple like as can be, and too much of the experience is outside of their control.

CableCARD is a US-only standard. Aren't they unlikely to do a US-only product?

They did CDMA, but that may have required money up front from Verizon to make it happen.

Possibly re the Verizon business terms, but even otherwise it's not quite the same thing. the CDMA model could use GSM networks everywhere (though not at LTE speeds). in addition to working in 40-45 countries that still have CDMA networks.

As someone who had a CableCard Tivo for years, I don't think Apple will get involved with that particular technology. It's true the cable companies are mandated by the FCC to support it, but they make it an extremely unpleasant experience. From customer service agents who either don't know what it is or who groan and sigh when dealing with CableCard issues, no self-install options, service techs who know less than I do about how CableCard works, flakey tuning adapters... the entire thing is about as un-Apple like as can be, and too much of the experience is outside of their control.

Yeah, I hear that. But then I remember what a pain in the ass phone companies can be and how much Apple was able to wrestle from them and I think maybe its doable.